Linux-Advocacy Digest #64, Volume #35 Fri, 8 Jun 01 19:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux dead on the desktop. (drsquare)
Re: Linux dead on the desktop. (drsquare)
Re: UI Importance (drsquare)
Re: UI Importance (drsquare)
Re: LINUX PRINTING SUCKS!!!!!!!! (drsquare)
Re: LINUX PRINTING SUCKS!!!!!!!! (drsquare)
Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU! (drsquare)
Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU! (drsquare)
Re: Why homosexuals are a threat to heterosexuals (drsquare)
Re: Why homosexuals are no threat to heterosexuals (drsquare)
Re: Why homosexuals are no threat to heterosexuals (drsquare)
Re: Why homosexuals are no threat to heterosexuals (drsquare)
Re: Windows XP Ushers in New Era of Communications (drsquare)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: The beginning of the end for microsoft (Larry Elmore)
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop (Ray Fischer)
Re: Why homosexuals are no threat to heterosexuals (Brock Hannibal)
Re: Laugh, it's hilarious. (Shice Beoney)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux dead on the desktop.
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 23:06:55 +0100
On Fri, 8 Jun 2001 14:03:08 -0400, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
("JS \\ PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>"drsquare" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >Oh... looks like it's time to head on over to pricewatch dot com.
>> >
>> >Hard drive space for bloatware:
>> >Well there an 80gb HD for 208.00 what's that work out to..... $2.60 to
>store
>> >Windows XP.
>>
>> I don't know where the fuck you're getting those figures from.
>
>I'm sorry http://www.pricewatch.com I guess spelling out pricewatch dot com
>threw you into a state of confusion.
What threw me into a state of confusion was that anyone would sell a
hard disk capable of holding Windows XP for $2.60.
>>I'd
>> like you to tell me somewhere that sells a harddisk for $2.60 that
>> would be capable of using XP on. When you include programs etc, you're
>> more than likely to have to spend at least £50 on a new harddisk.
>
>I wasn't including programs, I was listing the "per mb" cost of the Windows
>footprint on an 80 gb hard drive, which works out to a mere $2.60. Most
>people don't have to get a larger hard drive to install XP though since it's
>footprint is merely 1 gb.
So they just have to buy a $2.60 drive?
>> >RAM 128mb for $21.00 (my god it's getting cheap) But most people already
>> >have at least 64mb if they are currently running Win98. So I'll just
>order
>> >64mb from Connect Computers for a whole - $9.00
>> >
>> >I'm up to $11.60
>>
>> Again, I don't know where you're getting your prices from. 128MB of
>> RAM is more likely to cost at least £50.
>
>Again, the first sentnce of the thread your replying to refered to where the
>prices came from.
Sorry, but if you write an address like a sentence, you can't complain
if someone sees it as a sentence.
>> I'm up to $100.
>
>You mean your current hd is less than 1gb and you have NO RAM to start with?
>Damn.
I would have to take it out to fit the new RAM in, you fucking idiot.
>> >Now I need a MONSTER, state of the art, 233mhz processor (actually I'm
>> >currently running XP beta on a 233 w/ 60mb EDO RAM and it runs fine)
>> >
>> >Looks like a place called Kahlon will sell me a 233 for $27.00 (that
>hurts)
>>
>> And it will run like a dead whale at that speed. I think you're more
>> likely to need a 500Mhz, which of course will require a new
>> motherboard. So that's what, another £200?
>
>Windows XP isn't processor intensive. My 233 mhz hovers around 6% processor
>usage 99.9 % of it's life.
I'll just take your word for that eh?
>> >I'm almost out $40.00 upgrading my system to accomodate Windows XP!
>> >
>> >DAMN YOU MICROSOFT!! DAMN YOUUUUUUUU!!!!!!
>>
>> Yeah, £300, plus the cost of the OS on top of that. Not QUITE as cheap
>> as you make it out to be.
>
>Cheaper actually because I didn't spend a dime on hardware to install WinXP
>beta. Most of the rest of the world will not have to spend a dime on
>hardware to install it either. If your sitting on a box with less than 60 mb
>of RAM and less than 1 gb of free hard drive space, and less than a 233 mhz
>processor. NOT having windows XP isn't your biggest problem.
No, not being rich enough to be able splash out money foolishly on
brand new PCs every 6 months is my problem.
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux dead on the desktop.
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 23:07:01 +0100
On Fri, 08 Jun 2001 20:54:42 +0100, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
("Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>>> And it will run like a dead whale at that speed. I think you're more
>>> likely to need a 500Mhz, which of course will require a new
>>> motherboard. So that's what, another £200?
>>
>> Windows XP isn't processor intensive. My 233 mhz hovers around 6%
>> processor usage 99.9 % of it's life.
>
>Good lord! My Linux box (a P133) seems to run on 0.1% to 0.5% most of the
>time. What on earth dows XP spend 6% of the time doing?
Powering the animated paper clip.
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: UI Importance
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 23:07:02 +0100
On Fri, 08 Jun 2001 18:51:14 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
(Macman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I have experimented with regedit on the command line, but it's a
>> complete arse.
>
>Of course it is--it's a CLI tool.
>
>But it's not dramatically better or worse than other CLIs.
>
>BTW, if you've already experimented with it, why did you claim it
>couldn't be done?
Just because I experimented with it doesn't mean it works.
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: UI Importance
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 23:07:04 +0100
On 8 Jun 2001 18:53:33 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
([EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)) wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On 8 Jun 2001 15:46:58 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
>> ([EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)) wrote:
>>>> OK then, please explain how it can be done.
>>>
>>>regex.
>
>> Please elaborate.
>
>Man regex at your favorite prompt under your favorite unix, including
>linux. If you cant get through that, do a handy websearch.
No manual entry for regex.
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: LINUX PRINTING SUCKS!!!!!!!!
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 23:07:04 +0100
On 8 Jun 2001 18:54:00 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
([EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)) wrote:
>drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>What do you prefer?
>>>
>>>> BITTER.
>>>
>>>What *kind* of bitter, you simpleton.
>
>> Any.
>
>heineken?
That's lager isn't it?
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: LINUX PRINTING SUCKS!!!!!!!!
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 23:07:06 +0100
On Fri, 8 Jun 2001 21:44:45 -0400, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
(Nigel Feltham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>> I can't stand all that spirit shite. If you took out all the ethanol,
>> it would just taste like stagnant water. I prefer drinks like beer
>> which have their own flavour.
>Then again it's hard to know what pubs are doing to the beer between the
>barrel and the glass - at least you can be sure what you are getting when
>you buy it in cans. I don't go out drinking that often anymore anyway due
>to getting a mortgage - I do buy the occasional sixpack or bottle of spirit
>though ( the average bottle of spirit lasts me around 6 months - I probably
>waste around 1/3 of the bottle through evaporation).
But if you get it in a can, you've got to put up with the mankyness
and fiziness.
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU!
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 23:07:09 +0100
On Fri, 8 Jun 2001 14:03:36 -0500, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
("Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>"drsquare" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> Since when does it have to be open source?
>> >
>> >Because Penguinistas live in a world where everything should be free
>> >and everyone's happy and roses grow everywhere =)
>>
>> What the fuck is a "Penguinista"?
>
>Militant, rabid Linux defender/supporter. It's not a derogatory
>term, but it has become one somewhat.
Who the fuck came up with a term like that?
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU!
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 23:07:10 +0100
On Fri, 08 Jun 2001 19:41:58 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
(T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>Well, you can't write to a DVD, after all.
Of course you can. If you've got about £1000 spare.
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why homosexuals are a threat to heterosexuals
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 23:07:11 +0100
On Fri, 08 Jun 2001 15:12:43 -0400, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
("Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>"." wrote:
>> >> Its actually all about volunteering to die
>>
>> > The purpose of military is NOT to die for one's country....
>>
>> Yes it is. And you are irretrievably stupid for not understanding it.
>
>Wrong. Any soldier who dies is a FAILURE.
Yeah, especially when some woman in pyjamas puts a grenade in the
petrol tank of their vehicle, or when they get sent on a suicide
mission.
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why homosexuals are no threat to heterosexuals
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 23:07:12 +0100
On Fri, 08 Jun 2001 15:11:57 -0400, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
("Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>"." wrote:
>> > I'd like to see some statistics proving that. From a reliable source.
>>
>> He wont answer you. Or if he does, hell tell you to go look them up yourself.
>>
>> Then when you dont find ANY evidence to support his wild, paranoid, delusional,
>> insane claims, he will tell you that its because you didnt look hard enough.
>
>Denial ain't just a river in Egypt.
Look how Kuntis avoids the questions again.
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why homosexuals are no threat to heterosexuals
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 23:07:13 +0100
On Fri, 08 Jun 2001 15:23:41 -0400, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
("Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>flatfish+++ wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 08 Jun 2001 02:09:19 +0100, pip
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >flatfish+++ wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, 07 Jun 2001 21:00:14 -0400, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Fear makes a person small.
>> >>
>> >> And poisoning a childs mind is sick....
>> >
>> >Please could we end this OT debate here ?
>>
>> HITLER...
>>
>> How's that :)
>
>pathetic.
>
>You have to accuse your opponent of BEING Hitler.
>
>anything less is insufficient.....retard.
I just have in another post.
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why homosexuals are no threat to heterosexuals
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 23:07:14 +0100
On Fri, 08 Jun 2001 15:25:34 -0400, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
("Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>drsquare wrote:
>> >>>Please could we end this OT debate here ?
>> >>
>> >>HITLER...
>> >>
>> >>How's that :)
>> >
>> >No, I think one has to accuse one's opponent of being a Nazi.... :-) :-)
>>
>> OK then, Kuntis is a fucked up, bigoted, right-wing Nazi.
>
>That's what ALL Communists call their opponents.
And that's what all fucked up, bigoted right-wing Nazis call anyone
who even slightly opposes their viewpoints.
>> Is the thread now finished?
>
>Nope.
>
>You have to accuse your opponent of BEING Hitler.
Says who?
>Of course, since you are going to do it for the deliberate purpose of
>ending the thread, then the law does NOT go into effect.
OK then, I'M NOT TRYING TO END THE THREAD WHEN I SAY THIS:
Kulkis is a fucking fucked up, bigoted, right-wing Nazi, who only acts
as such to try and hide his repressed homosexual tendencies.
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Windows XP Ushers in New Era of Communications
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 23:07:16 +0100
On Fri, 08 Jun 2001 19:42:08 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
(T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>Said Sean in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 08 Jun 2001 02:13:20 GMT;
>>Frank
>>And, notwithstanding all the sock puppets and astroturfers,
>>Linux is a great desktop OS.
>>
>>The evil empire has peaked....the only question is how long
>>it will take to go down the toilet!
>
>I'm still hoping that the appeals court will come through soon,
>essentially supporting en toto the conviction and remedy, and Linux
>desktops will be *the* Christmas gift to give in 2001!
Yeah, but if you did that everyone would think you were a cheapskate!
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 22:05:11 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 07 Jun 2001
[snip]
> >This seems rather weird to me. If Symatec thought
> >highly enough of delegates to build WFC on them,
> >why not support them in their own JVM?
> >
> >Perhaps MS insisted.
>
> That does seem likely, given the circumstances. Supporting WFC for Java
> and Netscape would threaten the application barrier used to maintain the
> OS monopoly.
Not directly; WFC wouldn't magically work in
Sun or Netscape JVMs, just because it didn't use
delegates.
But MS needed an edge- some way for their
product to be *better* than Suns. Otherwise
nobody would use it; why sacrifice what portability
Sun can give you if you gain nothing thereby?
For WFC and J++ to take off they needed to be
better than Sun's offerings, and delegates offered
a chance to do that.
Just re-implementing Java exactly like
Sun's Java is a ticket to nowhere. It can
never have any advantage over Sun's
Java, since at best it is identical- and
more likely it has some flaws.
[snip]
> >That seems a rather strange thing for IBM to cry about. Why
> >should anyone expect Microsoft to product development
> >tools for other platforms?
>
> To make money? If they're supposed to be so good at making tools, why
> would they want to avoid turning a profit wherever they can?
Building development tools for other platforms
is high-cost, and you are at a permanent disadvantage
against the platform vendor, because they can
add any feature or address any problem and
the most appropriate level- even if that is
inside the OS. You can only change your
IDE, compiler, and so on.
This works in MS's favor on Windows, but
against them everywhere else.
[snip]
> >I'm sure there were 16-bit versions of VB. Didn't
> >they predate 1995?
>
> Visual Basic? Hell no. Word had a macro language called WordBasic, but
> even that wasn't any 'version of VB'.
This makes the 16-bit nature of VBX controls
hard to explain.
> >I was under the impression that OCX controls
> >were an effort to 'clean up' VBX controls and make
> >them language-neutral and 32-bit compatible.
>
> Well, if so, it failed pretty badly. OCX controls don't seem much
> better than VBX controls.
Well, OCX controls *are* language-neutral, and
they *do* work on 32-bit Windows.
So it appears they achieved their ends, if
nothing else.
> The whole thing was probably just more churn
> to keep anyone from being able to compete on Windows. :-D
Odd way to do it. Switching to OCX controls
made it feasible for *other* development tools
to use the same controls.
Making it possible for Borland to support
OCX controls seems like a strange thing
to do, if blocking competition is the aim.
[snip]
> >Mostly to keep all the goodies on your own platform,
> >I should think.
>
> That makes no sense. It is only a successful gambit if you have "your
> own platform". IOW, if you are monopolizing. MS owns their code, not
> "the platform".
MS owns Windows, and if their development tools
are available for Windows only, that is another reason
why a developer might choose to target Windows
only.
Which is, of course, exactly what MS wants.
> >Obviously, MS didn't think that important enough
> >to keep MFC and WFC to themselves.
>
> No, they thought it would maintain their illegal monopoly; the only
> reason they need to do anything.
Collaborating with Symantec, IBM and so on seems
like a strange way to do that.
> All the other motivations you guys
> give them are senseless flights of fancy. Why attribute to malice
> (competitive aggression) what can be adequately explained by stupidity
> (ignorance of the law)?
I don't see how ignorance of the law can explain
Microsoft's actions.
> >But farming things out to others has its drawbacks,
> >for a platform vendor.
>
> Calling MS a platform vendor is like calling Firestone a car dealer.
Well, they don;t make the hardware, but
they *do* make everything that an applications
sits on.
[snip]
------------------------------
From: Larry Elmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.arch,misc.invest.stocks
Subject: Re: The beginning of the end for microsoft
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 22:26:26 GMT
Peter da Silva wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Larry Elmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Windows than it was before the consent decree. I mean that Microsoft
> > > doesn't actually force companies to sell Windows with every PC, but
> > > they sure encourage it as hard as they can without stepping over the
> > > line.
>
> > As would almost any company that's competent enough to stay in business.
> > Corporations cannot be expected to do anything except what they perceive
> > to be in _their_ best interest. That's just reality.
>
> And your point is what?
If you _really_ have to ask that question, I suspect you'll never know.
I could've asked the same question of your statement with just as much
validity. I was mostly _agreeing_ with your remark, and extending
somewhat, _IF_ you really must have it s-p-el-l-e-d o-u-t f-o-r y-o-u!
> My point is that your analogy between cars and computers and transmissions
> and operating systems is silly. Removing a transmission from a car is complex,
> difficult, and requires special equipment. Removing an operating system from
> a computer requires... uh, a CDROM drive, which they come with.
That's NOT what you wrote a little while ago, when you compared it to a
motor _welded_ on to the boat! You even suggested Windows couldn't even
be removed at all, and you would have to mount your own "motor"
alongside of it. Talk about silly analogies!
> Do I expect Microsoft to behave any differently? Or any other company in
> their position? No. That doesn't change the fact that your analogy stinks
> on ice.
And it doesn't change the fact that YOUR analogy stinks like a 3-day-old
fish _not_ on ice. I've already implicitly, and now explicitly, admit my
analogy was flawed, but it was still not so dopey as implying Windows
can't be removed from a computer easily. And that was just one post
after talking up how _easy_ it was to do so! Yeesh! Just a little
cognitive dissonance here...
Larry
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ray Fischer)
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 22:30:11 GMT
Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"." wrote:
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Monogomous heterosexuals have no such problems.
>>
>> Neither do monogomous homosexuals. They do exist you know.
>
>Only lesbos.
>
>Male homosexuals are notorious for being incredibly promiscous....
Kulkis got dumped by his boyfriend?
--
Ray Fischer When you look long into an abyss, the abyss also looks
[EMAIL PROTECTED] into you -- Nietzsche
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 15:43:55 -0700
From: Brock Hannibal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why homosexuals are no threat to heterosexuals
On Fri, 8 Jun 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>>>> flatfish+++ writes:
>
> flatfish> On Thu, 07 Jun 2001 21:00:14 -0400, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Fear makes a person small.
>
> flatfish> And poisoning a childs mind is sick....
>
>
> Yes, lead poisoning is a bad thing.
>
> However teaching kids about homosexuality is nothing
> like that.
Wouldn't that depend on what exactly you were teaching them about it?
While I don't shield my son from the fact that homosexuality exists I
don't think I want to teach him that it's desirable or glamorous. I must
admit the homosexual lifestyle and sexual behaviors are not something that I want
my male child aspiring to. There, afterall, are many consequences of
that choice that might not include the kinds of outcomes I want for
my son. I think at 10 years old as his gender related sexuality is just
emerging, I don't want people preaching the benefits of homosexuality to
him. Just as I prefer not to allow people to preach their religions to
him. I'll handle teaching him about love, life and religion, the schools
can handle teaching him reading, writing and arithmetic, thank you very much.
--
Brock
"One thing counts in this life: Get them to sign
on the line which is dotted...A. Always. B. Be.
C. Closing. Always Be Closing."
http://www.swingout.net/
------------------------------
From: Shice Beoney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.aol-sucks,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Laugh, it's hilarious.
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 22:45:32 GMT
On Fri, 08 Jun 2001 16:24:35 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(The Ghost In The Machine) wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy, T. Max Devlin
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
>on Fri, 08 Jun 2001 04:05:43 GMT
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>Said Chris Ahlstrom in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 07 Jun 2001
>>>flatfish+++ wrote:
>> [...]
>>>> ie: This machine comes with 40 gigabytes of memory right?
>>>
>>>On the other hand, in the auto section of Walmart you'll hear more
>>>intelligent questions. Why is that?
>>
>>Well put. Why *is* that?
>
>It might be that NASCAR is more interesting than the yearly competition
>amongst highly intelligent, computer-knowledgeable students (I forget
>the name, but it's an East vs. West competition setup). :-)
<snip>
I find it hard to believe there's ANYthing less interesting than
NASCAR.
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
